Have there been any good RGT-centric threads on the death penalty? If not, we need to start one (I have no idea on which side of the issue I fall, so it would be nice to flesh things out).

If you mean best as in coolest then no....did I read the question wrong?

I'll admit, I didn't read the whole proposal.

You said that you didn't think OP needed to go past your posts, which says to me that you didn't think the other responses were as adequate as yours in dealing with the OP. Did I misread? What did you mean by that?

This assumption is false though. Retaliation is often much greater. Sometimes it is less. If you want an example of the latter, capital punishment itself furnishes one. In most of western Europe, the death penalty has been abolished. Yet murderers are still punished if they are convicted.

You're calling it that. Not sure that others are. Anyway, I'm not sure you're clear about the implications of the PD.

Yes, and I showed how your argument attempting to show this failed.

You need to show this, not simply assert it.

Did you just comment on my tone or did you compare my answer to the question?

I could be way off in my answer but you haven't actually commented on what I originally wrote.

Just your tone. I didn't read your other posts with any level of understanding. But I see others making longer posts (and I know OrP is thoughtful and not just writing lots of words for the sake of it), so when you dismiss those for your posts, I feel that's unfair to the others.

Sure, you might be right and your answers might be adequate, but I don't see why those other posts should be glossed over for your 2 lines.

EDIT: Though I could be misreading it since those posts were before yours, and therefore you saying that OP didn't need to go beyond your posts doesn't necessarily mean to skip the preceding ones. But then it's an odd phrasing to list your 2 by number.

I didn't say it was already applied, I said if we applied it.
I mentioned only how to apply it to murder.

Where did you show me my argument failed?

Tit for tat does what opponent did, if tft starts, it starts with cooperation.
Lex talionis does what criminal did, it's used mostly in injuries.
Here they are alike.

I said all good iterated PD strategies are equally (or very close) retaliating.
This statement was too bold, thanks for reminding me. I will make a change.

If retaliation is smaller than equal, it's a weakness, because your score is lower.
If retaliation is bigger than equal, it's called either exploiting, or holding a grudge.
Therefore optimal iterated PD strategy is equally retaliating.
I will verify this.

About lex talionis. I'm having a hard time accepting literal eye for an eye myself. But its message of revenge is important.

You are forgetting which assumption I'm claiming is false here. You said: "I assume if we apply tit for tat to any real life situation, retaliation is equivalent." This assumption can be shown to be false if I can give you examples of real life situations of tit-for-tat, but where the retaliation is not equivalent. That is what I did. In the case of criminal punishment of convicted murderers in Western European countries, it exhibits all the features that you are assuming is characteristic of tit-for-tat strategies (since you think that capital punishment is such a case). However, the retaliation is not equivalent--the murderer is not himself killed. Thus, your assumption is false.

This is a case where the retaliation is less than the crime committed. There are other cases where it is more--notably in the case of punitive damages.

Your defense here would have to be to claim either that the non-capital punishment is equivalent to the crime of murder (in which case your entire argument for capital argument would become moot anyway) or argue that this is not actually a case of tit-for-tat. I don't see the argument for that conclusion that would not also show that capital punishment is not tit-for-tat.

I've been focusing on your assumption that the retaliation for defection has to be equivalent to the scale of the defection. This has motivated your claim that capital punishment is justified, presumably for the crime of murder, as the punishment would be equivalent to the crime.

I've not disputed your defense of the rationality of retaliating against defectors (i.e. punishing criminals). What I've disputed is that this means that the rational amount of retaliation is the same extent of defection taken by the criminal. So far you haven't shown this second claim to be true--you seem to have just assumed that by defending the first claim you have defended the second as well.

Sure, as I said before, lex talionis is a tit-for-tat strategy. It is not, however, the only one.

Please do verify this.

Eh. Your identification of retaliation with revenge just seems wrong to me, but that is a further and less important conversation from the one I'm having.

Aha, I thought so. You think tit for tat is used in punishment for murder.
I can't see it, because it's not equal retaliation. I see it as a sucker strategy.
As in state is the sucker, criminal gets away with murder and also important, with state's resources. How is this tit for tat?

Yes, I will verify, but logic seems to hold.

I just wanted to remind you that capital punishment is already justified with other arguments.

Challenge accepted.

Maybe I'm completely lost here, but how can we use this to figure out how to punish child molestation? or public urination? or drug possession? or libel? or violation of a restraining order?

Aren't we also misunderstanding an eye for an eye here? I always understood it as a mantra suggesting the limiting of vengeance only up to the damage done to you.
Not like the fact it is a mantra holds weight of course.

Ok imagine me and you are the prisoners. I'll pick my strategy and you can pick yours. My strategy is to raise me and you (in school and all education) under the principle of nash "Me and you do what serve ourselves AND each other best"

So we are then caught in the prisoner dilemma and we both laugh because we will stay silent every-time and know the other person will too.

How can you beat that?

Please be more explicit as to how this pertains to my post, because I'm not sure I get it.

Where are you on this? last time you wrote you admitted you jumped to the conclusion I couldn't be snap right?

Have you finally taken my argument and applied it to OP or are you still just assuming I'm not right based on my tone?

Hint: I'm hoping you won't right back and say 'No I haven't examined it yet" but instead will just go and examine it.

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Nash which in that case I apologize because I assume everyone knows the Nash concepts better than me here (poker forum).

I just find it strange you would question my suggestion that I solved this before actually testing my solution, and then you would admit again that you haven't looked at it. And now you maybe be asking me again without looking at it.


Anyways lemme know where you are stuck and we'll work from there.

Its certainly possible I am wrong in the first place but you haven't addressed any of my solution to suggest that.

Also I sent you pm so we could straighten this out without cluttering the thread, but meh, lets do it.